Rochester's Superintendent of Schools, Dr. Bolgen Vargas: What took him so long to end early dismissal on Wednesdays? And why now?

Dr. Bolgen Vargas, Superintendent of the Rochester City School District, announced yesterday that he would be ending the decades long practice of early dismissal on Wednesdays starting at the beginning of this school year.

The school year begins in three weeks’ time.

This would add a whopping forty-fives minute a week classroom time to what has been proven to be the worst school system in New York State and one of the worst in the entire nation!

The reason behind early dismissal on Wednesdays goes back to the days when school kids would go to religious instruction at that time. THAT doesn’t happen anymore.

So what took Vargas so long to figure it out?

The teachers in the RCSD were expected to have meetings and undertake “professional development” ( whatever the Hell THAT is supposed to mean ) during the forty five minutes they had free once a week.

However, the boss of the teachers’ union, Adam Urbanski, is quoted by the D&C as saying “It was often poorly planned and unproductive anyway.”

What took Urbanski so long to figure THAT out, as well?

And why have Vargas and Urbanski waited until now to end early dismissal on Wednesdays?

Part of it might be that people and taxpayers are disgusted with the way they and the School Board have been wrecking the RCSD, reducing it to the level of a sick joke.

Part of it might be that this is an election year. Three School Board seats are up for grabs. The incumbents are looking to being re-elected, claiming that they are on the right track. Which they aren’t.

The challengers are looking for blood and a total reform of the RCSD, which might include sacking Vargas.

Extra time in the classroom might be a good thing for the kids in our decades-long suffering school system. At least for the kids who show up.

Last year at this time, Vargas himself grudgingly admitted that the truancy rate in Rochester’s public schools may be as high as fifty percent on any given school day. The “longer” Wednesday won’t benefit them.

Worse still, TV 8 news last night reported that some parents were upset with Vargas for “extending” Wednesday classroom time so near the beginning of the school year. This will cause scheduling problems at home, babysitting problems. Because the kids will be coming home forty-five minutes later on Wednesday? One day a week?

Their world will not end for such petty reasons and flimsy excuses.

You would think that parents, or legal guardians, would be grateful for any extra amount of education available to their children, most of whom have be pre-ordained NEVER to graduate from our schools.

Later dismissal on Wednesdays is the least of their problems with their children.

And none of this will solve the problem of youth gangs who roam our streets at all hours of the school day and at night. The parents don’t seem to be nearly as concerned about THAT!

TV 8 news also filmed a teacher, whose first statement about the later dismissal is as follows: “or concern is personally, for our own personal lives…” Perhaps she forgot that with early dismissal, teachers were supposed to be having meetings and professional development. How would later dismissal affect their “personal lives,” if they were supposed to be there, anyway?

Which makes me wonder if the teachers also left the schools as soon as did the students. That they, too, regarded it as a “short day.”

Suburban school districts haven’t dismissed their students early on a regular basis in years. Vargas is correct ( for once ) by saying early dismissal is taking away from the students who need classroom time the most.

The question remains, “What took Vargas so long to figure it out?”

And look at the tempest it has stirred up!

And the complaints it has raised from parents and teachers!

What it has revealed is how badly broken the RCSD is.

It will take a leadership that is serious to make improvements to change it.

April 30 is Walpurgisnacht, the night of the “Witches’ Sabbath.” It was also the first time a public forum on Mayoral Control that featured Mayor Bob Duffy occurred. What one has to do with the other is a matter for conjecture, though it might have had something to do with the low turnout for this much anticipated event. Only about 100 people showed up, despite the intensity of emotion that the subject has produced in Rochester the last six or seven months.

D&C editor James Lawrence moderated the event, sponsored by the Sigma Pi Phi Fraternity. The panelists were city council president Lovely Warren, Sandy Parker from the Rochester Business Alliance, Mayor Duffy himself, Rochester Teachers’ Association leader Adam Urbanski and school board president Malik Evans.

The rules for the discussion were simple: each panelist had seven minutes to make opening statements. There would be a follow up of two minutes to answer questions by Mr. Lawrence, followed by one minute to conclude. If the audience had any questions, they were to fill out a card addressed to a particular panelist, and then Mr. Lawrence would put the question to that panelist.

Unfortunately, none of the panelists were in their best form Friday night. In particularly, neither Bob nor Lovely looked well. Perhaps it was the warm weather. But none of the panel gave any real answers to the current crisis facing the Rochester schools.

Perhaps it was because the questions submitted by the audience seemed “cherry picked” by Mr. Lawrence. The three submitted by myself and two of my friends were never used. Perhaps it was because of time constraints. Perhaps some people had questions that were controversial. Perhaps some questions required replies that Mr. Lawrence felt that the panelists had no answers to offer.

Who knows?

All I know is that people left no wiser than before they came to this discussion, and that neither side were able to bring over their opponents to their way of thinking.

However, it was noticeable that the term “mayoral control” was hardly used. The term “educational reform” was frequently substituted for it by Lovely, Sandy and Bob, supporters of it. Adam and Malik, opponents of “mayoral control,” kept on speaking against it as such.

There were some interesting statements made during the course of the discussion, none of which had to do with improving anything, which allowed the panelists to tap dance around the issue.

Lovely Warren: “The city council can vote the school budget up or vote it down. But if we vote it down, it will still happen.” So why do we have city council vote for it at all?

Sandy Parker: “There are lots of high paying jobs in Rochester available to people with only high school diplomas. In the medical field, for instance.” What, emptying bedpans provides lucrative incomes? Come on now, Sandy!

Sandy: “In February, the RBA conducted a poll of 500 people, the results of which matched the poll conducted by the CGR the following month.” That’s the first anyone heard of that, and the CGR’s poll didn’t satisfy opponents of “mayoral control.”

Adam Urbanski: “I want change, just not this change.” “Assault on civil rights.” “Collaborative change, not concessions.” All of this sounds good. It would sound even better if Adam weren’t the head of a union whose membership would come under closer scrutiny and many downsized in the course of tightening up the school budget under “mayoral control.”

Malik Evans: “Non-binding public referendums.” “Non-partisan school board elections.” Sounds good, but it has been done before. And why waste the time and effort to vote on something that will not force anybody to do anything? But, at least Malik went through the city school system and did well there. And he is also the best example that a good family environment, despite poverty, can produce some shining examples. Perhaps Malik’s own experience is the greatest refutation of the need for mayoral control.

Bob Duffy: the usual glittering generalities, especially since everyone knows the problem. But he did wisely say that “there are no easy answers.” The problem, quite simply, is that he’s not providing ANY answers. If Bob simply produced a plan of some kind, it might go a long to way to gain support or at least silence debate. Bob also wisely chose not to mention his “79% approval rating” or the poll conducted by the CGR, since those have been done to death.

And so the debate goes on. “Mayoral Control” or “Educational Reform.” “A rose by any other name, the perfume, and the pricks, the same.”

Oh, well. At least the festivals are coming up. At least those are non-partisan.

The results of the latest poll on mayoral control of the Rochester City Schools, prompted by the Center for Governmental Research, are in. Two thirds of those people who returned their survey were in favor of mayoral control. That was no surprise, since the CGR is not an impartial body in this matter. Deputy mayor Patti Malgieri was formerly associated with that group. City employee Thomas S. Richards sits on the board of the CGR. Members of the Board of Trustees of the CGR wrote letters in support of mayoral control before this “survey” was conducted. ( Remember all those college presidents who came out supporting Mayor Duffy some weeks ago? )

Everyone knows that whoever pays for a survey to be conducted gets the results they desired. It is no different here.

According to Editorial Blogger Jane Sutter, Mayor Duffy was “thrilled to death” at the news.

Maybe it was the full moon.

Mayor Duffy also stated that other people will “come round” once the legislation to enable mayoral control is enacted. Of course, at that point, there won’t be a choice, except to pursue the matter in the courts. Otherwise, it will be a done deal, for better or worse.

But let’s take a closer look at what the mayor is “thrilled to death” about. It really isn’t that exciting.

The CGR claims that they sent out a survey to 2,000 Rochesterians. Rochester has a population hovering around 200,000, so we’re talking 1% of the population. Nobody I know received a survey, and for hoots and giggles, I intend to ask everyone attending the Maplewood Neighborhood Association’s monthly “town meeting” if they didn’t receive one as well.

435 people responded, which is 21.5% of the supposedly 2,000 surveys sent out, NOT the 26% posted by the D&C ( they didn’t do the math ), less than a quarter of 1% of Rochester’s population.

Two-thirds of 435 people supported mayoral control; the number is 290.

So Bob Duffy is “thrilled to death” that, out of a population of 200,000, 290 people support mayoral control!

That’s “Rochester By The Numbers!”

Don’t get me wrong. After the repeated abject failures of the Rochester School Board, I couldn’t care less if that body were blown off the face of the earth, whether they were elected or not. As for Adam Urbanski, his whining about mayoral control with no constructive alternative suggestions should be seen for what it is: he doesn’t want his applecart upset. The policemen and firemen’s unions have their own bones to pick with Bob Duffy, and are joining the protest merely to embarrass him, which has been largely successful. Parents and students oppose the mayor for various reasons, whether they be about popular input, which nobody ever denied them before, or retaining an elected school board, no matter how badly they have muddled the Rochester schools.

Pretty stupid reasons, given the situation.

But Bob hasn’t offered anything, either. And his secrecy is maddening, which has led to so much opposition to mayoral control.

Except, of course, for the 290 people who support it.

Bob could permit a popular vote to be taken on the subject: Yes or No to mayoral control, and winner take all. Now, THAT might be an accurate reflection of Rochester’s opinion, but Bob doesn’t seem to be “thrilled to death” to apply that solution. It won’t be able to be so easily manipulated as this poll was. The results might not thrill Bob.

As for the “Mandate of the 290,” I’m laughing so hard I might burst a blood vessel!

Bob Duffy cancelled his proposed “informational” neighborhood meetings on the subject of mayoral control of the schools because he didn’t have the information handy. And the legislation necessary to effect that project hadn’t been written yet. Nothing has changed there, except now the mayor has been invited to a breakfast, sponsored by the Rochester Business Journal, that will feature a forum on mayoral control. THAT he will attend.

Also lending their presence to this Rochester version of “The Mad Tea Party” from “Alice in Wonderland” will be school board member Van White and Rochester Teachers’ Association leader Adam Urbanski, who are unalterably opposed to mayoral control of the schools. They keep saying that the current system involving the elected school board is working out just fine, never mind the low math and verbal scores, the dropping graduation rate, the high truancy rate and the violence in the schools. They like to blame the state “tightening” graduation requirements.

This event will take place on Tuesday, March 23 at 7:30 AM at the Rochester Convention Center downtown. It will also cost $45 a head to attend!

It is a school day, and most working parents will be getting their kids ready to go at that time, before getting themselves ready to get to work.

And $45 for coffee and toast might seem a little high for most Rochesterians.

The time and cost will obviously prohibit most people who might be interested in attending from doing so, which is perhaps the idea: a controlled, “open,” semi-public forum featuring leaders who, in some way or another, live off of our tax dollars.

But it is the closest thing to an “open” forum that the mayor has deemed it “fit” in which to participate since he postponed his own “informational” meetings. Mayor Duffy has yet to announce when, or even if, they will be rescheduled.

Well, the state just released the figures for the graduation rate in Rochester for this year; we’re down to 46%. Not a good thing for those who see the need to keep supporting our inept school board, which claims that things are moving along nicely in Rochester’s schools. That would include board member Van White and Rochester Teachers’ Association president Adam Urbanski.

Of course, they now claim that they expected a drop in the graduation rate here this year, owing to the state tightening up standards. Funny that they never mentioned it before, while their opposition to mayoral control of the schools was heating up. From unacceptable graduation rates before the debate began, to a worse rate now, all they can do is blame the state.

Why not? Everyone else does for everything else.

Which makes one wonder if the standards set by the state were low to begin with, not that most of the kids attending the city schools could meet them even then.

At any rate, all this does is play into the mayor’s hands. Not that he has a plan yet, but it does make the elected school board and our trained and unionized educational professionals and their supporters look incredibly stupid. Which might make people think that any change would be an improvement on the current situation, which is no longer tenable or justifiable.

The late, great historian Barbara Tuchman in her brilliant work The March of Folly defined folly as the pursuit of an action or goal that is contrary to one’s self interest. She confined her study to actions that were perpetrated by groups of leaders, considered intelligent, as opposed to autocrats, tyrants, dictators and even mayors of one-party towns, where pursuing folly is more evident and regular. Taking us through the Trojan War, the division of the ancient kingdom of Israel, the antics of the Renaissance Popes, the American Revolution and finally the Vietnam War, Tuchman paints a portrait of politicians not devoid of resources or intelligence pursuing folly.

Folly such as mayoral control of the schools.

The main players in perpetrating this folly in Rochester are none other than the mayor himself, Bob Duffy; State Assemblyman David Gantt; and last but not least State Assemblyman Joe Morelle, thus fulfilling one of Tuchman’s criteria: group action.

Duffy, Gantt and Morelle are not unknown to each other. Morelle was the campaign manager for Wade Norwood’s unsuccessful pursuit or becoming mayor ( until he was appointed Monroe County’s Democratic Party Chairman ) and Gantt was one of Norwood’s main supporters. Duffy, of course, ran against and bested Norwood in the Democratic primary and went on to become mayor. Now they are allies. If politics in Rochester is not exactly incestuous, it certainly does make for strange bedfellows.

Even the D&C, long promoters of the said gentlemen, was forced to run two full page ads on the subject of mayoral control, denouncing them.

To do the mayor some justice, the schools are a mess and something has to be done. But declaring that he would assume control of the schools after his re-election and not before seems more than a bit disingenuous. Worse still, Bob seems to have believed his popularity would silence dissenters. That hasn’t happened: many parents and the unions are unalterably opposed to mayoral control. Even worse, the mayor presented no real plan as to how this would be undertaken. His political ally and old friend Duffy Palmer in Albany is writing up the legislation necessary to undertake mayoral control. With that in mind, it is easy to see why Bob cancelled the neighborhood informational meetings on the subject: he doesn’t have the answers yet. Nor can he explain why an elected school board counts less than his own election, since he plans to eliminate that school board. But he cannot be removed from office by mere protests. Only death, defeat or conviction of a felony can do that.

State Assemblyman David Gantt also supports mayoral control of the schools. Usually a clever man and an adept politician, he failed to judge the temper of his constituents over the subject. His office was picketed as a result, a subtle reminder to politicians when they appear to become overmighty and fail to consider the opinions of the voters. Perhaps he has another agenda which hopes to be fulfilled by instituting mayoral control of the schools. But like the mayor, he can’t be removed from office, either, by popular discontent.

Joe Morelle is the last of the big three. Unfortunately, his position among them is also the weakest. Yes, he is a state assemblyman, but his constituency is a suburban town, and one could say that he has no intrinsic interest in the educational system of the city, that he is sticking his nose into places where it doesn’t belong. Yes, he is also Monroe County’s Democratic Chairman, but his failing bid to conquer the County Legislature in all out war the last election ( heavily funded by the unions, of course ) didn’t help his reputation or demonstrate leadership. He didn’t realize the extent of popular opposition to mayoral control of Rochester’s schools, which brought protesters to his office. Nor did he understand the flack it would cause among the unions that serve the city, the main financial support of his party’s election campaigns. That, too, doesn’t demonstrate leadership, which is even more ironic in a one-party city monopolized by the Democrats for over a generation.

John Pavone, vice president of the Rochester Teachers’ Association, has called for his resignation as party chairman. Adam Urbanski, head of the RTA, has already said that the party should not expect any further financial support from the unions, that they will contribute to individual candidates only from now on. They, as well as the Locust Club ( the policemen’s union ) and the firefighters’ union, paid for those full page ads in the D&C blasting mayoral control and Duffy, Gantt and Morelle as well.

What they are saying is that the unholy alliance between the unions and the Democratic Party in Monroe County is finished.

Morelle has stated that that would destroy the Democratic Party. He also stated that he would not back down on his support of mayoral control of Rochester’s schools. But the best he and his fellow Democrats could “retaliate” with was cancelling their annual awards dinner, since the unions announced that they would picket the event.

That’s what Democrats do: they cancel events for fear of the protesters.

But Morelle won’t back down, despite the size of the forces against him, even if it brings his party down with him. And I don’t see either the mayor or Gantt threatening to resign if Morelle is forced out as county chairman. But still Morelle persists, championing an unpopular and unnecessary cause and putting his questionable leadership of the Democratic Party on the line.

Superintendent Brizard’s “plan” to revamp Rochester’s city schools calls for closing five high schools. Okay, there’s nothing new about that; it has been bandied about for days before his official announcement yesterday. Of course, he hasn’t mentioned which schools will be closed down, or really, any other features of his new plan. And Adam Urbanski, head of the Teachers’ Union, was whining about it. Not that anybody really knows anything about it yet, but it might call for the elimination of teaching staff, and Urbanski is answerable only to the dues-paying members of his union, not to the students, parents or taxpayers.

Att this stage, however, any changes might be preferable to the continuing decline of the Rochester City School District. We have, arguably, the worst schools in the state. We have the highest drop-out rate, the highest truancy rate, the lowest graduation rate, the lowest math and verbal scores. Continuing business as usual ( which is what Urbanski would like ) is not an option. We are not heading for disaster; we’re already there.

But the most frightening thing, revealed yesterday, is that Rochester made another national “list:” our city is 11th nationwide for the highest amount of child poverty! This is on top of the recent figures listing us as the worst in New York State for the decline of household income, as well as Upstate’s continued decline in population. Rochester’s population will probably be barely 200,000 in the 2010 census, down nearly 160,000 from fifty years ago! And the population of Monroe County as a whole is stagnant.

We’ll probably lose a couple of House seats when the state gets redistricted based on those census figures. Which means fewer advocates for federal aid. One can be sure that the gerrymandering involved then will produce some fantastically shaped districts. But that, too, is business as usual.

But Rochester’s coming in at 11th place for child poverty is frightening, especially when we are being repeatedly assured that the city is going in the right direction, that ( invisible ) jobs numbering tens of thousands are being created here. Only the current administration’s cheerleaders are applauding what is obviously not true. And we’ll have to wait for Brizard to make his overhaul of the school district public.

But, it could have been worse: we might have been in first place or in the top ten cities with the highest child poverty, so there are places even worse than Rochester ( 10 of ‘em ). There’s some comfort in that, isn’t there?

Contributors

Click on a blogger to see just their posts.

Rich Gardner has been writing about the history, culture and waterways of Upstate New York for years. His articles have appeared in U.S. and Canadian publications, and one book, Learning to Walk. He is an alumnus of Brighton High School and SUNY Geneseo. He operates Upstate Resume & Writing Service in Brighton and recently moved to Corn Hill, where he is already involved in community projects. "I enjoy the 'Aha!' moments of learning new things, conceptual and literal. City living is a great teacher."

Ken Warner grew up in Brockport and first experienced Rochester as a messenger boy for a law firm in Midtown Tower. He recently moved downtown into a loft on the 13th floor of the Temple Building with a view of the Liberty Poll and works in the Powers Building overlooking Rochester’s four corners as Executive Director for UNICON, an organization devoted to bringing economic development to the community. He hopes to use his Rochester Blog to share his observations from these unique views of downtown.